Practitioner Knowledge MCP

Search ideas

search_ideas

Read-only

Find personal ideas by searching titles, domains, problems, insights, assumptions, and tags. Results rank best matches first, show snippets, and fall back to partial matches when needed.

Instructions

Full-text search across titles, domains, problems, insights, assumptions, and tags. Results are ranked best match first and include a snippet with matched words in [brackets]. If no idea contains every word, ideas containing any word are returned instead, and each result's matched field says which rule applied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum results, 1 to 100.
`query`	Yes	Words to look for.
`domain`	No	Only search this domain.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds rich behavioral detail beyond that: ranking order (best match first), snippet format with [brackets], and the AND-to-OR fallback behavior with a `matched` field indicating the rule applied. This fallback behavior is unusual and valuable to disclose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, no filler. Front-loads the search scope, then ranking and snippet, then the fallback rule. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still usefully covers ranking, snippet format, and fallback semantics. Only the lack of explicit alternative-tool routing keeps it from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format details for query/limit/domain, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (full-text search) and enumerates the exact fields searched (titles, domains, problems, insights, assumptions, tags). This clearly distinguishes it from list_ideas and get_idea among siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'full-text search' versus the list/get siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer list_ideas or idea_stats instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server